Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Kiss-ass

About sailer99

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It was definitely a tough call, but a loose cover was definitely an option. They did it earlier that race in a similar position on the course: https://youtu.be/yDliuuAPmD0?t=3302 https://youtu.be/yDliuuAPmD0?t=3885 Course position and lead is almost identical in these two scenarios, the leg 3 one allowed them to control ETNZ to the top, the leg 5 one forced a split. These are split second decisions and not easy to make, I can't blame LR for making the decision they did. But this wasn't just ETNZ getting lucky, it was a tactical error from LR that gave ETNZ the split they were hu
  2. Since when is forcing a split "textbook" match racing tactics? Since when has sailing not involved wind shifts? When you are in front you want to limit the amount of advantage the trailing boat can gain from a shift, not force a split and hope you get lucky. The course boundaries may have been a bit narrow, but the match racing we saw was just as tactical and close as any America's cup. Just because the boats are faster and the boat handling challenges have shifted from sail changes to clean maneuvering, doesn't mean this isn't proper sailing. "The America's cup get's the glory, but the D
  3. The bit of nuance that I think is getting a little lost is that ITA had another option than slam or cross. They could have gone with a soft cover, roughly bow even with NZL (I believe Jimmy called for a soft cover). This would have put them in a position to lee-bow NZL on the next tack. Match racing is about control, ITA chose to give up control when they slammed NZL, so it was less luck and more of a tactical choice by ITA. With the slower boat, one bad decision will put you behind, and unfortunately that's what happened.
  4. Luckily, your book isn't the rule book. That incident was called 100% to how the RRS are written. Here is a similar case, where port was crossing starboard, and starboard changed course to try and "hunt", but port couldn't avoid by the time starboard started the hunt: https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/1359
  5. Gapped to windward has always been a winning start in match racing. If you started with enough gauge to live to windward, you are in control and forcing the other boat out left. The boundary currently give a slight advantage to the leeward boat that they wouldn't normally get, the ability to force a tack. Are we now complaining that the boat the starts better and sails better is winning? What do we expect racing to be?
  6. What this thread is showing is that a lot of people don't properly understand the rules. The right of way rules for this cup are essentially the same as the rules used in fleet racing and match racing around the world. The biggest change these rules have made, is virtually making the hulls of the boats larger so that the keep clear boat needs to stay further away. This isn't too different to what some match racing events do with sticks sticking off the stern to artificially extend the length of the boat and avoid damage. Talking about the two main incidents in question: LR luff vs
  7. There is a lot of rose-tinted glasses and unreasonable expectations in this thread. Displacement boats in the cup had plenty of boring races, especially in steady wind when one boat got ahead. People forget the bad and only remember the good. There is a quite a bit of match racing going on, and the same decisions that all one design match racers have to make. Here are the things that these boats seem to be doing quite well at: Tricky lead/push scenarios in the pre-start, having to pick between tight to leeward, gapped to windward, or split tack start. They are at higher speeds, bu
  8. It reinforces that 44.4(c) doesn't get used when both boats are OCS. Hence both have to serve a penalty under 44.2(a). In the QA, they both serve the penalty as 44.2(a)(ii) by correctly crossing the line. In today's race the only way the penalties could have been cleared is under 44.2(a)(i), but that didn't happen from what I saw.
  9. QA6 is also interesting regarding this: http://noticeboard.acofficials.org/rrs/qa
  10. Yes, but I don't believe (b) was satisfied. The umpire call was "OCS penalties cancel" which isn't allowed under 44.4(c). So both boats have to drop to 50m behind the other boat, but both boats didn't take a penalty.
  11. Not sure if this was mentioned further back but I'm unsure of the rule application for cancelling the OCS penalties at the beginning of race 5: That start of Prada Cup Race 5 had a couple of incidents involved. Ineos fouled Prada for failing to keep clear under RRS 11, and both boats were OCS. The ruling on the water was the OCS penalties cancelling, and Ineos had to serve the penalty for breaking RRS 11. Based on my reading of the RRSAC v3.03, I don't think the OCS should have cancelled and neither boat met the definition of start. Here are the relevant rules and definitions from http://
  12. I think they just need to go to him more. I like him on the water as he is the best at giving insights about the conditions and the boats. He can quickly identify where the puffs and shifts are. Shirley is nice to have in the booth, her strength is in interviews and generating interesting conversation.
  13. I've seen an overhead shot of Ineos that seems to show the top section looking symmetrical. This is probably easier for them to achieve.
  14. The flight control thing is probably the biggest advantage, and I think a huge decision that helps Ineos. Ineos has a flight controller per side, I believe the leeward side flight controller is the one in control (someone can correct me if I'm wrong). By reducing their grinder numbers, Ineos were able to do this. Prada can't, which is why going with the dual helm setup makes sense, you can't have your flight controller cross the boat easily, so instead, you get the off duty helmsman to handle flight control.
  15. This is going to be a hot take, but this forum wouldn't be any fun without any hot takes. AM put up a good challenge and felt more like that a yacht club challenge than the corporate entity that Oracle was. When you look at how their Prada cup went, it seems the AM expected a design contest and instead found a sailing regatta. The one thing the ACWS and now Prada cup has shown is these boats are close, and just boat speed was not going to be good enough. The competitive attitude portrayed by the team just seemed lacking compared to the cut-throat nature of Ainslie and Jimmy. Two main things st
  • Create New...